Holiday weekend trilogy
Catching up with Memorial Weekend political news
Holiday weekend trilogy
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
The sole proprietor of this blog is on the road for the month of June. Virtually all June posts will be briefer than the norm, except on those rare occasions when posts won't show up at all. Apologies in advance for this disturbance in the force. The standard verbosity will return on Monday, June 28.
So, catching up with some holiday weekend news:
Republican partisans went ballistic two weeks ago when Connecticut Democratic senatorial candidate Dick Blumenthal was caught lying repeatedly about his Vietnam war service - yet they're currently quiescent about Illinois Republican senatorial candidate Mark Kirk, who admitted this past weekend that he had lied repeatedly about his own military record. Gee, what a surprise that they're mute about this news.
Kirk, a Navy reservist elected to the House in 2001, told his supporters in an email that his staff had just "discovered" an "error" on his website. In his words, "I found that I had misidentified a military award." Nice try spinning that one. Kirk had stated - on both his campaign website and on his congressional website - that he was once the recipient of the Navy's prestigious Intelligence Officer of the Year award. In truth, he never was. And the only reason Kirk launched what he called "a recent review of my records" was because he knew that The Washington Post was sniffing around the story.
During NATO's conflict with Serbia in 1999, Kirk had been assigned to an intelligence unit at a NATO base in Italy. The following year, his entire unit received an award for outstanding service. By contrast, the U.S. Navy's Intelligence Officer of the Year award goes to a single individual annually.
Kirk never got that one. He just said he did. The Associated Press reported the other day that Kirk and his staff had "frequently" circulated the false claim, and had never corrected the erroneous news stories. Kirk himself had stated during a House hearing - aired on C-Span in March 2002 - that "I was the Navy's Intelligence Officer of the Year."
I assume that Republican and Democratic partisans will now argue over whether Kirk's sin was worse than Blumenthal's, or vice versa, according to whatever cherry-picked criteria sounds best. Why don't we all simply stipulate that the impulse to exaggerate is pitifully bipartisan?
-------
Speaking of the military, both the House and Senate took major steps late last week to finally allow gay soldiers to openly serve their country. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is on the way out - the legislation will underscore the military's own preparations for open service - and, politically, what's most striking is that most Republicans on Capitol Hill are still refusing to swim in the American mainstream on this issue. Late last Thursday, 167 House Republicans voted against open gay service; four voted in favor.
Mike Pence, the Indiana congressman who sees himself as an emerging national Republican leader, said last week: "The American people don't want the American military to be used to advance a liberal political agenda." Pence's error was fundamental. The polls actually show that the American people want the American military to reflect a centrist political reality.
In the latest CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey, 78 percent of Americans support open gay service in the military - and nearly 60 percent of self-identified Republicans support it as well. Other national polls report similar numbers. As former George W. Bush pollster Matthew Dowd said on ABC News this weekend, "Republican office holders are so far out of step (with) where the country is." Actually, it's worse than that. They're on the wrong side of history.
-------
So White House staff chief Rahm Emanuel got Bill Clinton to sound out Pennsylvania congressman Joe Sestak about possibly taking an unpaid national security advisory gig, in exchange for Sestak agreeing to drop his Senate bid. Sestak said no, Clinton quickly retreated; Sestak ran in the Senate primary, and won.
Wow, what a scandal. A White House, playing politics behind the scenes.
The Obama administration got its enemies all excited merely by refusing for so long to release the details about what had transpired during the Sestak negotiations. Turns out, thanks to its holiday eve confession, that the administration was merely conducting politics as usual. It just didn't want to cop to such conduct, because this regime wants us all to think that it always walks the high road. But it doesn't, nor is that even possible; the Obama people should just get over themselves. As conservative columnist George Will remarked on Sunday, while defending Obama in the Sestak episode, "Politics is a transactional business...That's what we do in this business, and there's nothing wrong with it."
Nevertheless, some hyperventilators will continue to paint the Sestak episode as Obama's Watergate or whatever. But they might want to check out this Associated Press story, dated Nov. 25, 1981:
"Senator S. I. Hayakawa on Wednesday spurned a Reagan administration suggestion that if he drops out of the crowded Republican Senate primary race in California, President Reagan would find him a job....In an interview earlier this week, Ed Rollins, who will become the president's chief political adviser in January, said Hayakawa would be offered an administration post if he decided not to seek re-election."
Get my point?
Yes. Democrats can never be held accountable for doing something wrong, since Republicans have done it as well. It is impossible to mention a Democrat sin without digging for na accompanying Republican one. But it doesn't work in the opposite direction. You may mention Republican sins and never dig to find a comparable Democrat one. As long as we are all clear.— Ramon- The reason that it is a shock is that we were promised the most transparent administration in history and HOPE and CHANGE.— Ramon
Comment removed.
It is transparent that this administration is not transparent. Nor are they anything other than the usual blood sucking parasites we have come to expect in Washington.- I haven't heard anything about the Blumenthal story since polls after it broke showed him still leading McMahon by 25 points or more. Not much traction there...As for Pence, well, they are called "fundamentalists" because all their convictions are based on fundamental errors - I thought everyone knew that was what it meant! Finally, looks like the Sestak business is behind us now too...maybe now Congress can work on passing some legislation to keep the "spill, baby, spill" crowd under control.— yoda
- Of course, not mentioned by partisan smearer Dick is Larry kane's revelation on Friday that the White House told Kane that Sestack's claim of a job offer was "not true." www.larrykane.com.— CD75
- Perhaps the Sestak deal is more poignant because Obama campaigned on the platform of transparency and insisted that he was a new kind of politician. Instead, Obama is just as shifty and shallow as the last guy.— Mark Glaeser
- Dick, I thought Obama was above conducting "politics as usual"??????? OMG! I just relalized that Obama is nothing more than a dirty Chicago politican and he lies! The horror!!!!!— Comrade Noodlehead
"Republicans on Capitol Hill are still refusing to swim in the American mainstream on this issue." Much like Dems swim with the American mainstream on Arizona.— jmc- Despite having voted for Obama (& still satisfied with that decision after seeing how McCain & Palin have conducted themselves since the election), I have to agree wholeheartedly with the 'Pubs' opinion that he campaigned against exactly that kind of nonsense. He's just as wrong as those Happy Husbands espousing Family Values while they are sowing their oats outside their marraige.— yobill626
- Having served in the Navy, I will never forgive any politician of any party for lying about their service, no matter the type of lie. It is unforgiveable and denigrates the good soldiers and sailors. People who have served, like myself, understand how these lies hurt. People who do not serve sometimes make light of them. Stop forgiving these people and do not allow them to get authority in our government. They do not deserve forgiveness ever.— frankfj
- One thing you can say in Obama's favor about his conducting politics as usual is that at least he's pretty bad at it. I can't recall any purely political move conducted on a personal level that he's handled skillfully.— yobill626
- "Partisan" is a big word in the echo chamber. Frank "bad rug" Luntz, years ago, instructed republican operatives to use the word partisan before the name of any Democrat. Of course, you'd never get them to admit any of them are partisan. You'd either have to be a fool or a liar not to admit that BOTH sides are partisan.— Rabe56
- This issue involving Sestak should work to his advantage in the coming election against Toomey. Despite the fact he's a sitting Congressman, he'll be able to project himself to the PA electorate as an "outsider". Smart!— yobill626
- I consider myself highly ethical, but I'm having trouble understanding why this is considered horrible behavior. In business, people make all kinds of deals every day. I must be missing something. Why is it considered unethical (on either side) to try and convince someone not to run for office by offering a position somewhere else? Is it considered intimidation or something?— NigeltheMastiff
- NigeltheMastiff : because of the money involved (which wasn't the case in this instance). If you offered someone, say, a $200,000/year job not to run, it's as close to a bribe as you can get. Now pretend that instead of offering it to the candidate, you put several members of his family on the payroll. You've now enriched the person to the tune of several hundred thousand dollars. this would easily be within the discretion of the executive branch to do... Now in this particular instance, it appears that there was no direct "quid pro quo" offer made, nor was the potetnial position worth any money, so I can't se how to argue that it was illegal. But in general, I believe that's why it is.— still_independent
- Ramon, the "attack so you don't have to defend" Republican strategy has already failed. Come on, brother. You don't have to attack people for pointing out something hypocritical that Republicans get up in arms about. Stand on policy, not what people are writing about hypocrisy.— HandNik
- The whole Sestak thing will NOT make him, a two-term Congressman, look like an "outsider." He's a predictably liberal D voter. And the Sestak thing does make the Waffle House look like fools, first to have made the offer and second to have stonewalled about it for months. Pretty fun stuff, which would have had Ds/libs howling if it had happened during the Bush years.— pj katauskas
- pj katauskas : how, exactly was it "stonewalled" ? It came up, briefly, back in Feb. Then it died away. It wouldn't have come back up at all if Specter had won. Where was the stonewalling? Where were the months of "no comments"? I'll grant they "stonewalled" it for a week or so after he won.— still_independent
- Al and Tipper Gore are separating. There is now a rumor on who's fault it is. George Bush!— Mike Welbourn
NigeltheMastiff - Maybe it is considered bad behavior because it is against the law? One definition of anarchy would be a society whose members choose to obey only those laws they find themselves in agreement with. Is it to much to ask the legislators who write this nation's laws to abide by them too?- It "died away" for Ds, not for Rs and independents to whom it smelled very fishy. And Sestak never let it "die away," or didn't you notice? If it happened the way it's been described, why not say so way back then. As usual, the coved-up/stonewall is probably worse than the underlying offense/impropriety/sleaze. (Do some research on Gibbs's responses to questions about it over the past month or so and you'll understand why I use stonewall.)— pj katauskas
- pj katauskas : I was just on foxnews doing searches. There were a few articles from mid-Feb when it first popped up. Then nothing 'till mid-May. Maybe it didn't "die away" for conservatives, but they certainly weren't writing about it until Sestak won. I'm simply pointing out that it's kinda hard to "stonewall" when no one is asking the questions.— still_independent
- I don't want to quibble about stonewall. All I know is that whenever the subject came up, the WH spokespersons were non-responsive. And it came up from Kane, King, and Sestak more than once and as you point out, Fox. Can you live "non-responsive?" My point is the same. Why not put it to bed asap if the exchange was harmless, which they now claim.— pj katauskas
- Stonewall - "to engage in delaying tactics or refuse to cooperate." Sounds close enough for govt work.— pj katauskas
- Lord, I didn't realize it was the law. No need to be snarky. And the way Still explained it, it makes more sense to me. And no, politicians shouldn't be above the law -- politicians of either stripe.— NigeltheMastiff
- NigeltheMastiff - Agreed. If interested, Google "18 USC Section 600" to see the actual law.
- Lord, thanks for the reference. I'll try to look it up.— NigeltheMastiff
- http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0610/secretive_on_sestak_435a43c7-f633-414e-adf7-b50533599c78.html The Obama story is laughable on it's face but good eno9ugh for the liberal media.— tr88
- Comment removed.
- bryane : it's just the opposite. Palin's "neighbor" is a reporter who is writing a less than flattering book about her, and moved in their for that purpose. She apparently just put up a fourteen foot fence between the properties. That's pretty much the opposite of stalking.— still_independent
- sorry, moved in there for that purpose.— still_independent
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
